this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
105 points (94.9% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3799 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago (3 children)

“This bill is not about privacy, because it will put private data at risk.

This bill is not about kids’ safety, because it will put their safety at risk.

It is not about parental oversight, because it takes those issues out of the hands of parents.

It is not about helping kids, because it’s going to shield kids from useful information that has literally saved lives.

The Republicans seem to know all this and are embracing it for these reasons. Which leaves a big question open: why are the Democrats supporting it at all?”

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dems support it because on a fundamental basis there is little difference between the two parties. Both lust after power, control and money and will break every rule to gain those - at both the party and individual member levels.

Ofc there are outliers like Bernie Sanders and (on a smaller scale) AOC, but the mere fact that the DNC pulled the 2015/16 scam on Bernie to push him out of the nomination offers clear proof that left-leaning, truly democratic outliers will never be allowed to win.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The world over, neoliberalism has created managed democracy. You can have the red neoliberals that are cruel and racist or the blue neoliberals that give you crumbs and pretend to be sad but one way or another, you're getting a neoliberal.

Because as you saw first hand, whenever they're threatened with an actual progressive, they have a class solidarity the rest of us can only dream of.

"Left-leaning" and "right-leaning" news outlets -- all of them coincidentally owned and operated by the ultra-wealthy -- united to call him a kook.

His own party repeatedly sold him out because they'd rather give Trump the best spot at the trough than get their own snouts out of it.

Sleazy corporations pooled their pennies to astroturf the ever loving fuck out of the internet and a hostile foreign government used Julian Assange to ensure the money kept flowing no matter the war crimes.

All backed by a bullshit economic philosphy that never comes true, but makes them filthy rich with every failure.

But in AOCs defense, the worst thing we could do is let infighting stop us from ever gaining the foothold we need to start prying these people from power.

And anything is better than fascists.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can't argue with that, but it's a bit like saying that the surface of the Sun and a day at the beach are both hot. Like, I can't argue with you because of how you stated it, but there are matters of degrees in both cases.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Great analogy

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's fair. I simply believe the degree of separation is in the low single digits.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And I'm sure that's true to your personal experience. But I hope you'll accept that for millions of Americans, we feel like one side wants to criminalize our very existence and way of life, and one side does not. Corruption aside, which I can agree is rampant across the spectrum, one side is openly questioning whether entire groups of people should be allowed to live out their lives enjoying the same freedoms as the rest of us, and that, for me, is important.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

one side wants to criminalize our very existence and way of life, and the other side will do nothing to stop them. I mean they'll make some mouth noises but when push comes to shove you'll find at their hands are always tied...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Old joke goes: one party is evil, one party is stupid. When they pass a law that's evil and stupid, they call it bipartisanship.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Which leaves a big question open: why are the Democrats supporting it at all?”

Not sure if you've been paying attention or not, but the democrats are all about controlling the flow of information on the internet, especially by "encouraging" companies to do their bidding, much like they did with Twitter and still do with Facebook etc. They want even more control over this.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Kids Online Safety Act does nothing to protect kids, and everything to inject the watchful eye of the government further into our lives. When are voters going to stop falling for the same two tricks? None of these bills have anything to do with kids or terrorism. They're all about enabling fascism.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

well looks like this is going to get pretty bad...How is it the responsibility of platforms to take care of your children for you? It's not school, it's not daycare, it's the internet. Does the electric company have some moral or legal obligation to keep your children from jamming a fork in the outlet? Does a public beach need staff on hand to keep children from digging dangerously large sand tunnels that could collapse? Is it up to the water company to provide your child with special means of not flooding your basement? If we need this for some reason, why don't we need to force manufacturers to create cars that won't start for under-16's, windows in high buildings that you have to be 18 to open, or headphones that won't get too loud unless you enter your date of birth? This is some Footloose-level bullshit and I just do not get it I guess.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is so dangerous. Why is he doing this?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both parties are fully onboard with "think of the children" legislation just like they are for police and military funding.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

The public is fully on board with it, unfortunately. Broad swaths of independents are terrified on behalf of children and will broadly believe anything you tell them could be a threat.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

isn't this the one where they want to make you upload your drivers license to Facebook

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both sides of Congress have been saying for years now they are going to regulate big tech. This is one of the few things politicians have bipartisan agreeance on.

[–] prole 23 points 1 year ago

They're also all too old to grasp the technology they're tasked with regulating. What could go wrong.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

It's almost like democrats are perfectly happy throwing queer people to the wolves.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

After taking a read through, it seems like section 3 and section 12 can be interpreted to mean that if you have evidence that access to sex and gender education is benefit for the mental health of minors, you can actually enforce social media platforms allow posts to those resources.

I don’t really see why people are saying this would be bad for kids?

And, it seems this bill would also force large platforms to spend more on catching people on their platform seeking to sexually abuse kids. Something that platforms know is so rampant that they are reluctant to put in the appropriate amount of resources at the moment to tamp down on.

If there is a benefit of much less kids being abused, then I think it’s worth passing and then working within that framework to fight to ensure the law is used to benefit and not harm the LGBT community where applicable.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

More like one is a forest fire and one is a lava flow. Yeah, they're on different levels, but neither of them are livable

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Why do politicians have to be such idiots. Rhetorical question, obviously.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you're in the US, here's a link to contact your Senators. https://www.stopkosa.com/

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

(3) COVERED PLATFORM.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered platform” means a social media service, social network, online video game (including educational games), messaging application, video streaming service, or an online platform that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.

SEC. 3. Duty of care.

(a) Prevention of harm to minors.—A covered platform shall act in the best interests of a user that the platform knows or reasonably should know is a minor by taking reasonable measures in its design and operation of products and services to prevent and mitigate the following:

(1) Consistent with evidence-informed medical information, the following mental health disorders: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors.

(6) Predatory, unfair, or deceptive marketing practices, or other financial harms.

Facebook is dead.

SEC. 4. Safeguards for minors.

(a) Safeguards for minors.—

(1) SAFEGUARDS.—A covered platform shall provide an individual that the covered platform knows or reasonably should know is a minor with readily accessible and easy-to-use safeguards to, as applicable—

(A) limit the ability of other individuals to communicate with the minor;

(B) prevent other users, whether registered or not, from viewing the minor’s personal data collected by or shared on the covered platform, in particular restricting public access to personal data;

(C) limit features that increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by the minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, notifications, and other features that result in compulsive usage of the covered platform by the minor;

(D) control personalized recommendation systems, including the right to—

(i) opt out of such personalized recommendation systems, while still allowing the display of content based on a chronological format; or

(ii) limit types or categories of recommendations from such systems; and

(E) restrict the sharing of the geolocation of the minor and provide notice regarding the tracking of the minor’s geolocation.

If they enacted Sec 4 for adults as well, I'd consider using Facebook again.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And people wonder why other people still call him "Sleepy Joe", albeit not out in the open at least 🤷‍♀️

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I don't know if him scheming to take away online privacy makes me think of him as "sleepy"

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

It's almost like democrats are perfectly happy throwing queer people to the wolves.

load more comments
view more: next ›